2018 (4) TMI 1146 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - duty paid materials purchased by them and further cleared after some process - Revenue entertained a view that these goods on which credits were availed were not put to any manufacturing process either directly or incidental to the manufacture of the product - Held that - neither appellant can avail the credit nor they are required to pay duty on the cleared goods. Here they have done both which apparently do not prejudice the Revenue except for legal issue. As such, this is not a case calling again reversal of credit and imposition of penalty. Once the duty is paid by the assessee treating the activity as manufacturing activity and cenvat credit is availed, there is no question of reversion of cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellant to avail credit on duty paid materials purchased and cleared after some process.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the eligibility of the appellant to avail credit on duty paid materials procured by them and later cleared after undergoing certain processes. The Revenue contended that the goods on which credits were availed were not subjected to any manufacturing process directly or incidentally related to the final product. The Revenue argued that the goods were essentially cleared as such after minimal processes like drying, leading to the reversal of credits availed by the appellants along with penalties. However, the appellant contended that they paid higher central excise duty upon clearance of the goods after processing, believing that manufacturing occurred and cenvat credit was applicable. The appellant highlighted that the duty paid on cleared goods was significantly higher than the disputed credits. The appellant argued that the Revenue cannot deny credit eligibility without addressing the duty payment on the cleared goods, which they believed was justified due to the manufacturing involved.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the duty paid goods received by the appellant underwent processes that did not amount to "manufacture." Despite this, upon clearance of the goods at a higher value, the appellant discharged duty using the credits availed on the inputs. The Tribunal noted that if the processes undertaken did not constitute 'manufacture,' neither could the appellant avail credit nor were they obligated to pay duty on the cleared goods. The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal emphasized that once duty is paid by the assessee considering the activity as manufacturing and cenvat credit is utilized, there is no basis for reversing the credit. The Tribunal highlighted that if the activity does not amount to 'manufacture,' duty levy is not applicable, and credits availed on inputs cannot be denied on the grounds of lack of 'manufacture.'

Based on the detailed analysis and discussion, the Tribunal concluded that further reversal of the availed credit was unwarranted, and there was no justification for imposing penalties on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law, providing a favorable decision to the appellant.